I'm sure some of them will come sooner or later, I'm not sure that now is the right time, I've already fallen victim to thinking inside the box a bit too much. I'm making a concerted effort to avoid that. They might be a bit too close to "how it's done" rather than "how it could be done".

When I was looking at memory structure trying to figure our how to setup memory.x at all, I was appalled to find stuff in there that fully isn't required and is misleading and just unused etc. I was expecting a nice modular clean set of files, instead I found Al's code modified and spread out not bad, but not good either. They should have started from blank. Or at least gutted it totally first. and put stuff back in selectively. IMO anyway.

I want them over here (though I doubt Ken will come) but not yet.

Fred.

assembly: never say never! here is what my prerequisites for assm code would be in our code: 1. Very small inline functions 2. pre and, post-conditions, purpose and usage cases are clearly and completely specified3. the algorithm is documented as asm-specifics-independently as possible4. asm code is completely documented with appropriately placed comments5. the C equivalent of the asm code is available in the same function and switchable to with an ifdef (ready to be switched to C equivalent if the asm code is under suspicion or for other testing)

tell me about memory.x , i still don't understand much in theirs

_________________Legal disclaimer for all my posts: I'm not responsible for anything, you are responsible for everything. This is an open and free world with no strings attached.

As it turns out, the release WAS called RC2B, but there was no post bumping the thread mentioning the update, and Ken's quote seemed to imply that it had the same name. I take back most stuff in the last post. A bump and "hey, we did this" notification might have been nice though. It might also have saved some confusion...

As it turns out, the release WAS called RC2B, but there was no post bumping the thread mentioning the update, and Ken's quote seemed to imply that it had the same name. I take back most stuff in the last post. A bump and "hey, we did this" notification might have been nice though. It might also have saved some confusion...

Fred.

Its a minor point, but one I've told them several times, and they ignore it....

If someone has a thread called "b18 released!", there should be a post in that thread saying "b19 was released, here's a link".

It generally takes minimal effort to make life easier for a whole lot of people. And when free-beta-testing is the goal, making it easy on users should be obvious.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum